Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
    I also strongly disagree with Nuntius assertion that it's two sides of a coin. The eye test severely out weighs advanced stats, and it's not even close. There are no stats for work ethic, overcoming adversity, character, competitive drive, momentum, toughness, intelligence, etc. Stats can only tell you what happened in a certain situation at a certain time. But they can't PROJECT. The eye test along with knowledge that stems from experience can. I've seen players with horrible stats have a HUGE impact on games many times. And I've seen players with great stats not impact games at all. So stats in general are just a tool designed for people who didn't get to see the game. And that is actually how stats came about BTW, so people could fallow the game before highlights and TV deals came along.
    I feel that the majority of the people who say that they are "against stats" are just misusing the term. This part of your post is a prime example of it.

    Work ethic, overcoming adversity, character, competitive drive, momentum, toughness, intelligence and in general every quality that you mentioned in your post have one thing in common. They are non-quantifiable factors.

    Statistics are not supposed to record and calculate non-quantifiable factors. They are only supposed to record quantifiable data. And this is the same for every branch of statistics, in general.

    You cannot ask a statistician to build a formula that measures how good a man's soul is. Why? Because it cannot be measured. Statistics are not supposed to answer to this question. It's that simple.

    That's why I never doubted the value of the eye test. Both have equal value. If you ignore statistics then you end up with biased arguments that are based on your experiences (filtered by your selective memory) that lack statistical basis (such as "Kobe is clutch"). If you ignore the eye test then you fail to realize why and how some things that are recorded happened.

    PS: Advanced statistics go a lot further then the box score. Just because a player doesn't grab tons of rebounds or doesn't score a lot then it doesn't mean that advanced statistics will ignore his impact if it's big enough. A major example of that is OKC's Nick Collison. He has never dominated the box score in his career but he has always been a very impactful player for OKC according to both the advanced statistics and the eye test.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      This guy thinks otherwise. (Daryl Morey)


      From wiki


      Also

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Morey
      And he sucks, and will probably be fired soon. You wanna trade Larry Bird for him?
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
        And he sucks, and will probably be fired soon. You wanna trade Larry Bird for him?
        No.

        But he is a GM with no basketball background, but rather a numbers background, which you said woudn't happen, when it already did.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          I agree with that, all I'm saying is that people put way too much stock in the stats.

          That's what makes the great coaches great, is that their eye test is superior to everyone else. They have a vision, an ability to project what a player is CAPABLE of. They can do what the advanced stats can't, and that will never change.

          If people buy into these stats to that level, they will rely on them more. That means they will value the eye test less and less as time goes on. And they will find that those stats are very deceiving, if they put too much emphasis on them.

          My comment about stats being for people who don't watch the games is a simple one. Because no matter what happens and is recorded, you have to watch the game and understand it to know how it happened. To me the stats are the when and where, and the eye test is the how and why.
          I could just as easily say that the great coaches are the ones who best know how to adjust what they see based on the statistics.

          If what you are saying is true, we'd see great coaches who don't bother with statistics. I don't know of a single one. We'd see GMs that don't uses stats at all. I don't know of one.

          To say that some people will reject watching games or films in favor of using pure analytical statistics is just as flawed - after all, the goal is to win the games (the ultimate statistic, some might say), not to max out a particular statistical category.

          That's not to say that all coaches rely on all statistics equally. It is universally acknowledged that assists as a stat are very subjective. Rebounds can be subjective as well, to a certain extent. But part of really understanding statistics is knowing how reliable the sources of the numbers are so that outliers can be rejected. Newer statistical categories (or groupings, as in this case) won't be treated as reliable until they have a better foundation.

          While I agree that statistics can't replace watching the game, sometimes looking at the statistics first can completely change HOW you look at the game.

          I have to agree with Nuntius. Stats keep the eye test honest, and the eye test sees things that the stats may not immediately make clear. You need both, equally.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            Yes we pursued Adelman, Bird has a history with him. And Adelman is a great coach who has won everywhere he's been, and he is starting to win in Minnesota as well.

            If our roster was so good, why is Lance, PG, and Hibbert the only guys who are still here?
            Minnesota managed to get over .500 yesterday (30-29). They have very good individual talent with Kevin Love, Nikola Pekovic, Ricky Rubio and Kevin Martin (Brewer, Budinger and Shved are good as well and they have some good role-players as well) but they are not a consistent team. They tend to underperform at the closing minutes of a game and that's something that a great coach would probably fix.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              I feel that the majority of the people who say that they are "against stats" are just misusing the term. This part of your post is a prime example of it.

              Work ethic, overcoming adversity, character, competitive drive, momentum, toughness, intelligence and in general every quality that you mentioned in your post have one thing in common. They are non-quantifiable factors.

              Statistics are not supposed to record and calculate non-quantifiable factors. They are only supposed to record quantifiable data. And this is the same for every branch of statistics, in general.

              You cannot ask a statistician to build a formula that measures how good a man's soul is. Why? Because it cannot be measured. Statistics are not supposed to answer to this question. It's that simple.

              That's why I never doubted the value of the eye test. Both have equal value. If you ignore statistics then you end up with biased arguments that are based on your experiences (filtered by your selective memory) that lack statistical basis (such as "Kobe is clutch"). If you ignore the eye test then you fail to realize why and how some things that are recorded happened.

              PS: Advanced statistics go a lot further then the box score. Just because a player doesn't grab tons of rebounds or doesn't score a lot then it doesn't mean that advanced statistics will ignore his impact if it's big enough. A major example of that is OKC's Nick Collison. He has never dominated the box score in his career but he has always been a very impactful player for OKC according to both the advanced statistics and the eye test.
              Nobody ignores statistics. Everyone pays attention to them who is involved in basketball.

              Some people just over analyze them.
              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                And he sucks, and will probably be fired soon. You wanna trade Larry Bird for him?
                Bird is better but Morey doesn't suck. He is just mistaken about the value of the mid-range shot, imo.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                  Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                  Nobody ignores statistics. Everyone pays attention to them who is involved in basketball.

                  Some people just over analyze them.
                  When people say that only the eye test matters then they pretty much ignore statistics.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                    He hasn't replaced the basketball people at all.

                    Ever heard of Kevin McHale?
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                      No he sucks, lol. He hasn't had a single good draft pick.

                      Btw nuntius, Minnesotas roster stinks, and Adelman has definitely maximized their talent.

                      Again no one is ignoring statistics, that is a made up argument. But you can go too far with your analysis of them.
                      Last edited by Taterhead; 03-04-2014, 02:17 PM.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        No he sucks, lol. He hasn't had a single good draft pick.
                        Yes, because that outweighs their 40-19 record....

                        EDIT: I think a lot of people mis use them, or don't know what they're supposed to represent. I think back to the discussion a few months ago about TS%, when MJ was brought up. Having a better TS% than MJ doesn't mean a player is better than MJ, just that they have a better TS% than MJ. You take stats at face value and apply them solely where they should be applied. It allows you to compare apples to apples. If you were to ask which player is the better shooter, you don't watch them play a game. You go and look at their shooting stats. It provides a numerical value of all their shots ever taken and bundles them down to one number that can easily be looked at, instead of watching every minute they've ever played.
                        Last edited by Since86; 03-04-2014, 02:21 PM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          He hasn't replaced the basketball people at all.

                          Ever heard of Kevin McHale?
                          Um, Morey hired McHale to coach. Btw, are you saying that McHale did a better job as GM in Minnesota than what Morey is doing now in Houston?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                            No he sucks, lol. He hasn't had a single good draft pick.

                            Btw nuntius, Minnesotas roster stinks, and Adelman has definitely maximized their talent.

                            Again no one is ignoring statistics, that is a made up argument. But you can go too far with your analysis of them.
                            Chandler Parsons in the second round?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Yes, because that outweighs their 40-19 record....

                              EDIT: I think a lot of people mis use them, or don't know what they're supposed to represent. I think back to the discussion a few months ago about TS%, when MJ was brought up. Having a better TS% than MJ doesn't mean a player is better than MJ, just that they have a better TS% than MJ. You take stats at face value and apply them solely where they should be applied. It allows you to compare apples to apples. If you were to ask which player is the better shooter, you don't watch them play a game. You go and look at their shooting stats. It provides a numerical value of all their shots ever taken and bundles them down to one number that can easily be looked at, instead of watching every minute they've ever played.
                              I think we are making the same argument really because your edit sounds more like what I'm trying to say. I've never said they don't have a place but people do take them too far, and I'm talking about fans mostly.

                              My argument is focused mostly on the people who use PER to evaluate a player, or TS%. Those are the two I think people overvalue the most. I'm not saying there isn't some truth to them, just that people misuse them.

                              When I made the comment about statisticians running franchises I just meant that they will never replace scouts and experience. I'm not a fan of Morey but I also don't believe he is running things based off these numbers with no input from guys like McHale.

                              I do feel like there is a group of people who feel like they can analyze these statistics and know all there is they need to know. And that is what bothers me.
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                No he sucks, lol. He hasn't had a single good draft pick.
                                Sorry but this is just false. Daryl Morey was hired as a GM in May 10, 2007. This is a list of the players that he has drafted since then and the pick in which they got them. The good picks will be bolded.

                                2007 Draft:

                                Carl Landry (#31 pick): Obviously a very good pick that is still in the league.

                                Acquired the draft rights of Luis Scola from San Antonio: Another obvious homerun.

                                Brad Newley (#54 pick): Extremely late pick that didn't pan out.

                                2008 Draft:

                                Nicolas Batum (#25 pick): Traded to Portland on draft day, hard to give him credit for this pick since the pick was probably made by Portland.

                                Joey Dorsey (#33 pick): Looked decent in Toronto for 40 plus games but didn't pan out eventually in the NBA. He is having a great career in Europe, though. Helped Olympiacos win a Euroleague title and he is now playing in Barcelona.

                                Maarty Leunen (#54 pick): Extremely late pick that didn't pan out.

                                2009 Draft:

                                It's important to note that the Rockets didn't have any draft picks in 2009 but they spent roughly $6M in order to acquire the 32nd, 34th and 44th picks.

                                Jermaine Taylor (#32 pick): Didn't pan out.

                                Sergio Llull (#34 pick): Member of the Spanish NT that won the Silver medal in the last Olympics who hasn't come over to the NBA yet. He doesn't seem to have much interest for the NBA but he's a good player that will find a spot if he ever chooses to come over.

                                [b]Chase Budinger[b] (#44 pick): Obviously a good pick. A good wing off the bench.

                                2010 Draft:

                                Patrick Patterson (#14 pick): Mediocre pick. Patterson is a good player but he was drafted above Larry Sanders, Eric Bledsoe, Greivis Vasquez and Lance who are better than him right now. He was also drafted above Jordan Crawford and Avery Bradley who is debatable. He is a definitely a better pick than Ekpe Udoh and Cole Aldrich, though. He is probably a better pick than Xavier Henry as well although that's debatable.

                                2011 Draft:

                                Marcus Morris (#14 pick): Picked right after his brother, Markieff. Same situation with Patterson. He was picked over Kawhi Leonard, Nikola Vucevic, Iman Shumpert, Tobias Harris, Kenneth Faried, Reggie Jackson, Jimmy Butler and Isaiah Thomas. Certainly a better pick than Derrick Williams and Jan Vesely, though.

                                Nikola Mirotic (#23 pick): This pick will be bolded when Mirotic comes over (probably this summer or the next). Nikola has developed into a very good basketball player although the pick is not with the Rockets now (it is with the Bulls).

                                Chandler Parsons (#38 pick): Obviously a steal. Crazy pick value just like Lance.

                                2012 Draft:

                                Jeremy Lamb (#12 pick): Good pick. Putting up almost 10 PPG off the bench for OKC as a 2nd year player.

                                Royce White (#16 pick): Didn't pan out for reasons not related to basketball.

                                Terrence Jones (#18 pick): Great pick. 11.6 PPG and 7.1 RPG as the starting PF of the Rockets in his 2nd year. He has filled the hole that they had at the spot and made a trade for a PF in the vein of Ilyasova unecessary.

                                Furkan Aldemir (#44 pick): He has not come over yet.

                                2013 Draft:

                                Isaiah Canaan (#34 pick): I liked this pick a lot. He has not gotten an opportunity with the Rockets yet but he's playing with their D-League team and doing very well.

                                So, that's it. As you can see he has had a lot of good draft picks.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X